Seeds: Twins - No Mom - No God?

[Age]

Why do theists believe in an impossible God which is an illusion?

The far more pertinent question is...

Why do atheists believe in the even greater impossibility that the unfathomable order of the universe is founded upon the blind and mindless processes of "CHANCE"???

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” — TERENCE MCKENNA

Indeed, V, your "faith" in the creative powers of chance would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew.
_______

WHY do 'you' two, and "others", even BELIEVE the 'things' that 'you' DO?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do theists believe in an impossible God which is an illusion?

The far more pertinent question is...

Why do atheists believe in the even greater impossibility that the unfathomable order of the universe is founded upon the blind and mindless processes of "CHANCE"???

“Modern science is based on the principle ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The ‘one free miracle’ is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” — TERENCE MCKENNA

Indeed, V, your "faith" in the creative powers of chance would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew.
_______

Nope!
I don't speculate what is there beyond what is really real and possible to be real.
Speculating what is beyond what is real is METAPHYSICS which is in la la land.

As such, I don't speculate on chance, accidental re how the Universe began or originated beyond what is real and verifiable empirically via a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

There is no Laws of Nature from God or otherwise; Law of Nature are invented by humans and imposed on reality which humans are co-creators of.
At present I am reading Van Fraassen's "Laws & Symmetry" which argue for the above thesis.

So, what is really real is, all things I can see, touch, feel, sense, smell, hear as justified with critical thinking via a human-based FSK.
The most fundamental real things are the things I can eat to survive, maintain health, the oxygen I breathe, and other things that are verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

Even with things I cannot sensed directly, they must be POSSIBLE to be verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

God is something that is not empirically possible and cannot be verified via the human-based scientific FSK.

Does It Matter Whether God Exists or Not?
viewtopic.php?t=40161
God as an invention, an intelligible thought [cannot be sensed] merely matter as a psychological crutch to the theists [majority] to soothe the terrible pains of cognitive dissonances arising from an inherent existential crisis.

We don't need a God for all the current advancement in knowledge and technology, to be able to go to the moon and explore space to find possible inhabitable places in outer space to cater for population expansion or the destruction of the Earth.

Actually, the belief in a God as a psychological crutch has been a hinder to the above advancement in knowledge and technology.

[seeds]

Indeed, V, your "faith" in the creative powers of chance would put to shame the most devout Christian, Muslim, or Jew.

Nope!
I don't speculate what is there beyond what is really real and possible to be real.
Speculating what is beyond what is real is METAPHYSICS which is in la la land.

My goodness, V, can you be any more "twin two-ish" than that?

Well, seeing how you created a thread about me and my fanciful little soap opera, please indulge me as I gather all three episodes of my little drama and display them right here in one post for the sake of the two or three hapless lurkers who might be reading this and wondering what the heck this "twin two" business is all about...

_______

Welcome to this first episode of - "Oh the Irony" - brought to you by the makers of Remington rifles.

< cue the organ music...

In this initial episode of - "Oh the Irony" - we are listening to the unborn Swanson twins, telepathically communicating with each other while still in their mother's womb:

• Twin one: "I wonder what mom looks like?"
  
  Twin two: "What mom? I don't see any mom around here."
  
  Twin one: "But I can somehow sense her presence."
  
  Twin Two: "That's just your imagination playing tricks on you. There is no mom."
  
  Twin one: "But..."
  
  Twin two: "There are no buts about it. The only things that exist are the two of us, this watery substance, and that impenetrable barrier that surrounds us. So, tell me, genius, where is this mom you speak of? Prove her existence to me."
  
  Twin one: "How can I prove her existence to you?"
  
  Twin two: "If this imaginary "mom" truly exists, then why doesn't she reveal herself to us?"
  
  Twin one: "I don't know why. Perhaps she has a good reason?"
  
  Twin two: "You're insane. Again, there is no mom. Trust me because I am way smarter than you because I rely on the obvious truth and facts."
  
  Twin one: "Well, can we at least agree to disagree?"
  
  Twin two: "No! You are clearly a victim of wishful thinking. Again, trust me when I say - there is no mom!!!"

_______

Welcome back to episode two of - "Oh the Irony"

In this second installment of - "Oh the Irony" - we rejoin the unborn Swanson twins still carrying on their telepathic conversation in the dark and watery world of their mother's womb...

• Twin one: "I know you think I'm imagining things, but not only do I still believe that there exists a "mom," but I am now starting to think that there exists a higher dimension of reality on the other side of the great barrier that surrounds us."
  
  Twin two: "What in the world are you going on about now?"
  
  Twin one: "I know this'll sound crazy, but a little while ago, I pressed my ear against the barrier, and I thought I heard a voice singing to me from the other side."
  
  Twin two: "Oh my poor little delusional sibling. How many times do I have to point out to you that logic dictates that you, and me, and this closed watery world is all there is?"
  
  Twin one: "Would you please stop being so obstinate and just press your ear against the great barrier. I'm sure I can hear and sense something on the other side."
  
  Twin two: "No! I absolutely refuse to be drawn into the world of your insane delusions. Again, you idiot, there is no "mom" and there is no higher dimension of reality on the other side of the great barrier. Stop making a fool of yourself!!!"

_______

Welcome back to this third episode of - "Oh the Irony" - where after nine months of telepathically arguing with each other, the Swanson twins' world is about to undergo a dramatic change...

• Twin one: Uh-oh, there's something strange going on...
  
  Twin two: What now?
  
  Twin one: Are you blind? All of that watery substance that surrounded us has drained out through that tiny opening in the all-encompassing barrier. And look, the opening seems to be a narrow tunnel leading to some kind of light.
  
  Twin two: Right, and I suppose that tunnel leads to that higher dimension of reality and the invisible "mom" you mentioned a while back? You delusional idiot, how many times do I have to tell you that there is no higher dimension of reality? Now go back to sleep.
  
  Twin one: You go back to sleep. I'm going to investigate that tunnel.
  
  Twin two: Fine. Good luck getting your big fat head through that skinny little opening in order to investigate some silly fantasy you've dreamed up. I, on the other hand, being the wisest of the two of us, am staying here where things are real. Humpff!!!,..a "tunnel leading to a light" and a nonexistent "mom." How in the world is that knucklehead my twin?

There you have it, the entire first season of the drama - "Oh the Irony" - streaming for free right here on the PN channel.*

*(Compare that to that shyster, Alexis Jacobi, who wants you to pay some exorbitant fee for his sketchy email courses.)

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Nope!
I don't speculate what is there beyond what is really real and possible to be real.
Speculating what is beyond what is real is METAPHYSICS which is in la la land.

As such, I don't speculate on chance, accidental re how the Universe began or originated beyond what is real and verifiable empirically via a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

If you do not believe in the existence of any sort of higher intelligence being responsible for the creation of the universe (which you clearly do not),...

...then by sheer default, you have no other choice but to accept the proposition that chance is the cause of the unthinkable order laid-out before our senses.

In other words, you don't need to intentionally speculate on whether or not chance is responsible for the creation of the universe, and that's because it is implicit in your denial of intelligent design.

Furthermore, if you are foolish enough to suggest that simply because their presence in the physical universe could be verified by a scientific FSK, you are thus willing to accept - as a viable option - the ridiculous notion that highly intelligent aliens on some other planet within the universe could be responsible for the existence of us and our world,...



...then you will be proving that you are even more naive and deluded than what you have already established, for such a proposal would offer nothing towards solving the mystery of how the aliens and their world came into existence.

There is no Laws of Nature from God or otherwise; Law of Nature are invented by humans and imposed on reality which humans are co-creators of.

Let me get this straight...

Are you so oblivious of the implications of your own words that you fail to notice that what you are suggesting is that before humans even existed, they were nevertheless somehow involved (as "co-creators") in the creation of the highly ordered physiological setting that had to be in place before they could actually be awakened into existence?

And you have the gall to accuse others of residing in "la la land"???

So, what is really real is, all things I can see, touch, feel, sense, smell, hear as justified with critical thinking via a human-based FSK.
The most fundamental real things are the things I can eat to survive, maintain health, the oxygen I breathe, and other things that are verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

Yes, V, just like "twin number two" being incapable of seeing beyond the immediate confines of his mother's womb in my little "allegorical" drama, you have made it quite clear that you are incapable of seeing beyond the illusion of objective reality.

Even with things I cannot sensed directly, they must be POSSIBLE to be verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

No, V.

For one thing, let's see the human-based scientific FSK verify the ontological status of a superpositioned electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen in the double slit experiment...



It literally cannot be done.

Indeed, even though something "real" is taking place in that interim space, nevertheless, any attempt to verify its status would be the metaphorical equivalent of attempting to verify the status of a Kantian noumenon.

So, once again, V, your assumption about what is or is not possible is wrong.
_______

[Veritas Aequitas]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

Nope!
I don't speculate what is there beyond what is really real and possible to be real.
Speculating what is beyond what is real is METAPHYSICS which is in la la land.

As such, I don't speculate on chance, accidental re how the Universe began or originated beyond what is real and verifiable empirically via a human-based FSK of which the scientific FSK is the most credible, reliable and objective.

If you do not believe in the existence of any sort of higher intelligence being responsible for the creation of the universe (which you clearly do not),...

...then by sheer default, you have no other choice but to accept the proposition that chance is the cause of the unthinkable order laid-out before our senses.

In other words, you don't need to intentionally speculate on whether or not chance is responsible for the creation of the universe, and that's because it is implicit in your denial of intelligent design.

Whose default? it is YOUR default not mine.
Why should I accept 'chance' at all? when whatever is Law of Nature or Order is contributed by humans and not any illusory God.
I can just ignore this fictitious idea of 'chance' and nothing will happen to anyone on Earth.

For you, you have to cling to some original cause due to psychological desperations.

Furthermore, if you are foolish enough to suggest that simply because their presence in the physical universe could be verified by a scientific FSK, you are thus willing to accept - as a viable option - the ridiculous notion that highly intelligent aliens on some other planet within the universe could be responsible for the existence of us and our world,...


...then you will be proving that you are even more naive and deluded than what you have already established, for such a proposal would offer nothing towards solving the mystery of how the aliens and their world came into existence.

Yes, as long as the speculation is based on variables that are empirically possible.
Note the speculation above re aliens is empirically possible, it just a matter of producing the empirical evidences for verification, but that speculation above is very unlikely, i.e. 0.00001% possibility at the present.

There is no Laws of Nature from God or otherwise; Law of Nature are invented by humans and imposed on reality which humans are co-creators of.

Let me get this straight...

Are you so oblivious of the implications of your own words that you fail to notice that what you are suggesting is that before humans even existed, they were nevertheless somehow involved (as "co-creators") in the creation of the highly ordered physiological setting that had to be in place before they could actually be awakened into existence?

And you have the gall to accuse
others of residing in "la la land"???

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISdBAf-ysI0 AL-Khalili
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31180

Humans are the Co-Creator of Reality They are In [2]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32476
Humans are the Co-Creators of Reality They are In [3]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35227

Yes, within common sense, the moon pre-existed humans, BUT,
in the ULITMATE SENSE [the most real sense], there is no way, the moon and order existed before there were humans.
"The Moon Pre-Existed Humans" is a Non-Starter
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34859

So, what is really real is, all things I can see, touch, feel, sense, smell, hear as justified with critical thinking via a human-based FSK.
The most fundamental real things are the things I can eat to survive, maintain health, the oxygen I breathe, and other things that are verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

Yes, V, just like "twin number two" being incapable of seeing beyond the immediate confines of his mother's womb in my little "allegorical" drama, you have made it quite clear that you are incapable of seeing beyond the illusion of objective reality.

Whatever is objective reality, it must be conditioned upon a human-based FSK, as such it can never be mind-independent or independent from humans.

Even with things I cannot sensed directly, they must be POSSIBLE to be verifiable via the human-based scientific FSK.

No, V.

For one thing, let's see the human-based scientific FSK verify the ontological status of a superpositioned electron as it resides in the interim space between the double-slitted wall and that of the phosphorescent screen in the double slit experiment...

It literally cannot be done.

What is most real is that which can be verified and justified by 'only' the scientific FSK.
If it cannot be done at all. i.e. impossible, then it cannot be real.

Indeed, even though something "real" is taking place in that interim space, nevertheless, any attempt to verify its status would be the metaphorical equivalent of attempting to verify the status of a Kantian noumenon.

So, once again, V, your assumption about what is or is not possible is wrong.
_______

The Kantian noumenon cannot be verified by the scientific FSK.
At most, the noumenon can be taken in the negative sense as an assumption within the scientific FSK.

To take the noumenon in the positive sense as something really-real like all empirical things, that would be reifying an illusion as real, which is driven by psychological desperations.